Roberts's Rules

"After saying Monday in an online chat with a newspaper's Web site that his intention was not to run for president in 2008, Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) yesterday said he would not completely rule out the possibility," says the Inquirer .

The administration really had to sweat to get this 217 to 215 victory, reports the Los Angeles Times :

"The House voted late Wednesday to ratify the Central American Free Trade Agreement, handing President Bush a hard-fought victory on a measure with limited economic effects but large political consequences . . .

"The late-night House vote capped weeks of high-pressure lobbying and deal-making by Bush administration officials, Republican leaders in Congress and outside business groups who viewed CAFTA's approval as essential to advancing U.S. commercial interests, foreign policy goals and GOP political objectives."

Kevin Drum objects to the Republican spinning on Plamegate:

"During the past month . . . the growing evidence that someone in the White House really did expose Plame has caused more than a bit of panic -- and a change of heart. We've already heard from Fox's John Gibson, who not only thinks it was OK to expose the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press, but apparently thinks it was a positive social good. Valerie Plame 'should have been outed by somebody,' he said, and Karl Rove deserves a medal for being the only guy with the guts to do it.

"Since then, the proposition that it wasn't a big deal even if the White House did out Plame, has become a routine talking point. Over at QandO , Jon Henke nicely summarizes the now standard conservative position "If a White House official 1) consciously knew that Valerie Plame was a covert agent 2) whose identity ought to have been protected, and 3) that White House official initiated a leak of her name to the press 4) in order to disclose her identity, then he ought to be removed from his position and prosecuted.

"In other words, if Rove's failure was merely that he didn't care enough to check on Plame's status, then he did nothing wrong. If he knew she was covert but didn't realize that the CIA prefers its covert agents to stay covert, then he did nothing wrong. If he knew that too, but outed Plame in a conversation that someone else initiated, then he did nothing wrong. And finally, even if he knew all those things, but his motivation was merely to score points against Joe Wilson, rather than to ruin Valerie Plame's career, then he did nothing wrong. These criteria essentially justify in advance virtually anything that Rove might plausibly have done.

"Nearly every conservative blog now follows this line. Plame wasn't really all that covert. Rove was merely engaged in a longrunning turf battle with the CIA. Hell, somebody had to smear Joe Wilson. The guy had it coming. If that required the exposure of Plame, her front company, and potentially every source she's ever worked with, that's the way it goes. After all, we don't know for sure that anything bad came of this, do we?

"The moral bankruptcy at the core of this argument is truly stunning."

You may not have heard of this local controversy, but Paul Reickhoff is steamed:

"Radio host Michael Graham broadcasts ignorance and hate on WMAL-AM (630) in Washington, D.C. Check this out from the Washington Post:

" The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. 'The problem is not extremism,' Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. 'The problem is Islam.' He also said, 'We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam ."

"No we are not, you idiot. By the way, as someone who has served on the ground in Iraq, I can tell you for certain that this type of talk will really do nothing to help our troops trying to win hearts and minds in a country that is 95% Muslim!"